capslockf9 wrote:"By exploiting the quantum energy fluctuations in entangled particles, physicists may be able to inject energy in one particle, and extract it in another particle located light-years away." Re:: http://www.physorg.com/news184597481.html

How does one go about extracting energy from a particle light years away? Or does it only mean that this would in theory be possible because of entanglement?What has changed in relation to what Anthem posted? Have there been successful expieriments?

entanglement and non-locality are a fact not a theory. Entanglement has worked for effecting the spin of a distant electrons and qubits are being sent and extracted -"Physicists have teleported quantum information between two atoms separated by a significant distance".."Now researchers at the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan have successfully teleported quantum information between two ytterbium ions separated by 1 m, reporting a 90% success rate"...RE: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/37450

"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind." - Dhammapada

Jakob wrote:From the perspective of matter=light+mechanism, the quark seems to be part of the mechanism by which substance is kept together - by which light is trapped. It is not retrieved, only perceived, right? I mean it can't be distilled, so to speak, from the nucleus, or can it? How can they even observe a quark, now that I really think about it?

Quarks are observed by scattering experiments. There's definitely three parts to a proton, see http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/41014. People talk about gluons keeping quarks together. Gluons are the QCD equivalent of the virtual photons in QED which are said to keep the electron and the proton together in a hydrogen atom. There's a lot of people now talking about the evanescent wave as the physical thing underlying virtual photons, search google for details. The point is that the evanescent wave is light, light is essentially a wave of space in space, and at the subatomic level there isn't really any substance. When you break a proton you don't get three quarks flying out along with a host of gluons. See what I said earlier re pions and neutrinos, but in essence what you get is light.

"If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. Even if the electron radius were as large as 14 nm (classical electron radius) then it would have to be rotating at 2.3×10^11 m/s. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×10^8 m/s, and is thus impossible. Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the "intrinsic angular momentum."

This is a trivial logical flaw. The electron isn't rotating like a planet. But to then say that its angular momentum and magnetic moment is nothing to do with rotation just doesn't follow.

I realize that word play has no place in science, however I was quoting this because I find it interesting that matter seems to be weaved from light with the mechanism of spin, of rotation. It just makes so much sense even within the symbolism we have already.

Doesn't it?Pretty cool stuff!Kind of threw my mind back for a moment in simplicity the first time I comprehended it all in definition.

I still can't thank Farsight enough for doing, in that single little book, what would have taken me most of my life to figure out a way to articulate, or even conclude.I had a notion of the concept, but nothing quite like he introduced.I'm keeping it for my kids, that's for sure!

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

Thanks Stumps, but remember that it's mainly a synthesis drawn from papers that people just don't get to hear about. Like http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265. Physics is far more cutthroat than the public appreciates, with groups and collaborations trying to crowd competing theories and portray their own theory as the only viable option. Jakob, I don't like to "spam" it, so I don't mention it too much, but this is it:

People reading this thread should be aware that Farsight is a notorious board spammer. All one has to do is search for threads with his name and whatever physics topic he is talking about to see that he constantly dodges questions about the details of his "synthesis." Most of what he writes is not physics: he has a pseudo-science book to sell. Be aware.

PhysBang wrote:People reading this thread should be aware that Farsight is a notorious board spammer. All one has to do is search for threads with his name and whatever physics topic he is talking about to see that he constantly dodges questions about the details of his "synthesis." Most of what he writes is not physics: he has a pseudo-science book to sell. Be aware.

Ah, a string theorist, I presume? I have an urgent question for you: can you indicate where his model is improbable? I don't expect a material being to explain the occurrence of matter in perfect detail, but if there is a fatal flaw in the explanation offered, I'd like to know before I buy into it with extreme prejudice. You will have to retroactively render the synthesis of this knowledge illegal. Even then, F's contributions made it possible to conceive of a substance prior to matter. Matter is caused by a mechanism that amplifies radiation to an extent where it amounts to the four dimension of space-time. The fifth is the literal dimension - the proportion of the reproduction of the primordial structure. The sixth is structure itself (the beehive)At the level of the seventh dimension breaking down of harmony into lower, more specific forms of it, secific-ness. The eight dimension is reproduction of specific-ness, which is the basis for self reference. The ninth dimension is impossible to construct, it only exists as ultimate consequence of substance. I have it almost all figured out. I'd hate to be wrong about this.

PhysBang wrote:People reading this thread should be aware that Farsight is a notorious board spammer. All one has to do is search for threads with his name and whatever physics topic he is talking about to see that he constantly dodges questions about the details of his "synthesis." Most of what he writes is not physics: he has a pseudo-science book to sell. Be aware.

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

No, just someone who actually took the time to learn the science that Farsight seems to not be able to follow. (Indeed, I have serious doubts about string theory.) If you want to buy his book, go ahead.

I have an urgent question for you: can you indicate where his model is improbable?

Well, there are two good places to start.

1) Farsight claims that the properties of the electron arise because of some special spin from a photon. Despite numerous requests from many people, Farsight has refused to explain how a particle without charge can produce the properties of charge. He has similarly refused to explain how and why a photon would take on such a spin.

2) Farsight claims that General Relativity does away with the need for dark matter. Since all cosmologists working on measuring dark matter with gravitational lensing use GR, it seems that Farsight's claims are simply wrong on their face. Again despite repeated requests from many people, Farsight has refused to run through an example with any galaxy to demonstrate how GR shows that there is no dark matter in a galaxy.

These are two claims Farsight makes with his theory that disagree with hundreds of physics papers (if not tens of thousands) that he has refused to defend.

PhysBang wrote:1) Farsight claims that the properties of the electron arise because of some special spin from a photon. Despite numerous requests from many people, Farsight has refused to explain how a particle without charge can produce the properties of charge. He has similarly refused to explain how and why a photon would take on such a spin.

I never refuse explanations PhysBang, you know that. See the post below for an explanation.

PhysBang wrote:2) Farsight claims that General Relativity does away with the need for dark matter. Since all cosmologists working on measuring dark matter with gravitational lensing use GR, it seems that Farsight's claims are simply wrong on their face. Again despite repeated requests from many people, Farsight has refused to run through an example with any galaxy to demonstrate how GR shows that there is no dark matter in a galaxy.

I've explained it in very simple terms. It's actually trivial. It's fully in line with Einstein's GR, and you have no counter-argument. Your demand for a fully-worked mathematical is merely a diversionary smokescreen. I won't give it because it would take me too long and readers won't understand it anyway.

Most people have heard of Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. They’re aware that it constituted an important development for special relativity. However very few people notice a little paragraph two pages from the back:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

A wrench turns a bolt which has a screw thread. You turn a screw and it moves forward. Or you can use a pump-action screwdriver to convert linear motion into rotational motion. This is why alternators and generators and electric motors work, and you can find a reference to a screw mechanism in Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:On_Ph ... _Force.pdf and note this line on the wikipedia page 53:

"A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw "

Look at the page heading and see where it says The Theory of Molecular Vortices. Maxwell didn’t get this right, but it turns out he wasn’t far off. Once you understand the dualism of the electromagnetic field, it’s horribly simple: it's a "twist/turn" field with an underlying curved spatial geometry.

Think about a vertical column of electrons and try to envisage the surrounding electromagnetic field. If you are motionless with respect to this, you’ll see the electric aspect of the field, with radial “electric field” lines and linear motion along them. If however you move downwards past the column of electrons, you’ll see the magnetic aspect of the field, with orbital “magnetic field” lines and rotational motion around them. Your downward motion is relative, so the magnetic aspect is visible if you are motionless and the electrons are moving upwards, as per a current in a wire and the right-hand-rule:

Note that it’s one field, it’s the electromagnetic field, not separate electric fields and magnetic fields. Jefimenko's equations are a useful reminder in this respect. The electromagnetic field is a dual entity, there’s only one field there. Moving through an electric field doesn’t cause a magnetic field to be generated, because as Minkowski said, it’s the electromagnetic field, and it exerts force in two ways. It doesn’t actually look like anything, but iron filings on a piece of paper tells you that you can visualize a field. Note though that the iron filings only show you a slice through a “magnetic” field, and you need to see the electromagnetic twist/turn field in three dimensions. You can use a drill bit for this, but a reamer is better. This kind of thing:

Grasp a reamer in your right fist, place your left thumb on the bottom of it, and push upwards. It turns. The disposition of the electromagnetic field around a column of electrons is like a reamer. It has an innate twist, and motion through it causes turn. If you imagine a nested family of reamers all centred on the same vertical line, you can get an idea of how the field strength diminishes with distance. Then when you imagine a horizontal slice through the field, it would have a spatial twist like this:

This twist is however in three dimensions, which is why Minkowski said the analogy is not complete. Take a piece of wire and bend it to form a Fibonacci spiral. It is now curved, and resembles one of the lines in the picture above. Now lie the wire flat on your desk and bend in another Fibonacci spiral orthogonal to the first. Your wire is now “curled”. Hence magnetic curl. In Europe this is called rot, which is short for “rotor”. It’s caused by a frame-dragging effect by a central soliton or more properly "vorton" rotating in two dimensions, like this:

This is a depiction of the electron. It''s a self-trapped photon. See http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 . Note the black line in the depiction, indicating a double-rotation, hence spin ½ . Again we see twist and turn. The electron is often called an elementary or fundamental particle, but it isn't. You can create an electron via pair production:

It's like throwing a wave at an obstruction and seeing two opposite eddies coming out. These affect the surrounding space - something like a rotating electric floor polisher on a thin rubber sheet, but in three dimensions. The result is an electromagnetic field. Conservation of charge is rather like conservation of angular momentum - if you were up in space in a spacesuit and you manhandled a satellite to give it a rotation, you’d find yourself counter-rotating.

The reason why the photon self-traps at 511keV is straighforward. An electromagnetic field is a twist/turn field, and it is a spatial geometry. A light wave is an electromagnetic field variation, which is actually a pulse of "twist/turn". It's best to think in terms of a pulse of spacewarp in a cubic lattice. Imagine a lemon-shaped extensional distortion of the lattice in the centre - a bulge like a swell wave on the ocean surface, but symmetrical top and bottom because this is in a bulk. The archetypal sinusoidal electromagnetic wave is telling you the slope of the horizontal lattice lines. Around a lemon-like shape, the slope rises to a maximum a quarter-way along the lemon, goes back to zero at the top of the lemon, then falls to a negative maximum three-quarters along, then goes to zero again. If this pulse of spacewarp encounters another pulse of spacewarp, it's moving through warped space, and so its path changes. If this causes it to encounter more spacewarp, its path will change further. That black line in the depiction above is telling you that here we have spacewarp that is travelling entirely through itself. At 511keV, where the degree of spacewarp is just right. The path keeps changing, and as a result the photon energy/momentum is now travelling in a circular path. Hence angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment with a g-factor of 2.0023.

Someone has to be there to make sure that people are not grossly mislead about contemporary physics.

I never refuse explanations PhysBang, you know that. See the post below for an explanation.

You appear to have cut and pasted a post from another forum, a forum where many people have pointed out that you have no explanation.

But let's humour you. How does Minkowski's mathematical description of electromagnetic phenomena in the paper you cite produce anything like the diagram you use? Since Minkowski's paper is a mathematics paper, please show the mathematics. (If you can't, then your citation appears to be dishonest.)

I've explained it in very simple terms. It's actually trivial. It's fully in line with Einstein's GR, and you have no counter-argument. Your demand for a fully-worked mathematical is merely a diversionary smokescreen. I won't give it because it would take me too long and readers won't understand it anyway.

Show us directly how the measurements of dark matter done by all those astronomers are wrong. Don't insult the intelligence of people here. Since you were never able to answer this question in front of a board full of astronomers, it merely looks like dishonesty when you refuse to answer the question now.

The mathematics doesn't show it, PhysBang. The right hand rule does, along with the fact that the electromagnetic field is one field, and works via a screw mechanism, or a wrench if you prefer, just like Maxwell and Minkowski said.

As for dark matter, as I've pointed out previously, astronomers haven't measured any. What they've actually measured, is gravitational anomalies. One merely has to read what Einstein actually said in The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity (3.6 Mbytes) to see the fallacy of the dark matter hypothesis. On page 185 he says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". As we all know, a gravitational field isn't made of dark matter. You don't look at a gravitational field and say "Ah, this causes gravity, there must be dark matter particles there". The dark matter hypothesis is based on the presumption that space is homogeneous, which is contrary to general relativity:

"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν),"

The space around a galaxy isn't homogeneous because space expands between the galaxies but not within, as per the raisins-in-the-cake analogy. Hence a galaxy is surrounded by a halo of inhomogeneous space. A gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. So galaxies have an extra gravitational field component, but it's caused by differential expansion, not by dark matter. Which is why the CDMS collaboration can't find dark matter.

Farsight wrote:The mathematics doesn't show it, PhysBang. The right hand rule does, along with the fact that the electromagnetic field is one field, and works via a screw mechanism, or a wrench if you prefer, just like Maxwell and Minkowski said.

Any rule that describes how things move will be a rule that one can describe mathematically. It is well known that Maxwell and Minkowski, like all serious physicists, both used mathematics to describe electromagnetism. Additionally, if you knew anything about mathematical physics, you would know that a "wrench" does not always produce a rotation. So either show how Maxwell and Minkowski actually produce your particular picture or admit that there is no support for your position and move on.

As for dark matter, as I've pointed out previously, astronomers haven't measured any. What they've actually measured, is gravitational anomalies. One merely has to read what Einstein actually said in The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity (3.6 Mbytes) to see the fallacy of the dark matter hypothesis. On page 185 he says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". As we all know, a gravitational field isn't made of dark matter. You don't look at a gravitational field and say "Ah, this causes gravity, there must be dark matter particles there".

If this is the case, then show us exactly how taking this into account removes the gravitational anomaly. Remember, people have been measuring dark matter in galaxies for decades now, so there are lots of papers for you to choose from for a good example of a single mistake in this area. If you have never actually done this kind of calculation and comparison with the actual work of astronomers, then it seems that you are simply not telling the truth.

The dark matter hypothesis is based on the presumption that space is homogeneous, which is contrary to general relativity:"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν),"

The measurement of dark matter in galaxies and galaxy clusters make no assumption that space is homogeneous. You have either bought someone else's mistake or lie or this untruth is one you have created. We know that the dark matter measurements are not based on an assumption of homogeneity because they are measurements of galaxies, objects which are concentrations of matter. Of course, Farsight, you can try to actually find a paper where this assumption is shown.

But this is still nothing but a distraction away from how physicists do their work: with measurements.

No the scientifc evidence shows it, the right hand rule and the relative motion, not the mathematics. And people have been measuring gravitational anomalies for decades. That's why it's the dark matter hypothesis. Nobody can find any dark matter, remember? And see the FLRW metric and note where it says The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. Now what did Einstein say? Neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Simple.

Farsight wrote:No the scientifc evidence shows it, the right hand rule and the relative motion, not the mathematics. And people have been measuring gravitational anomalies for decades. That's why it's the dark matter hypothesis. Nobody can find any dark matter, remember? And see the FLRW metric and note where it says The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. Now what did Einstein say? Neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Simple.

Except that

a) The FLRW model is not used to measure the amount of dark matter from galaxy rotation curves. You should know this, as probably a dozen people on the internet have pointed this out to you. And this is something that anyone who says anything about dark matter physics should know. So apparently you haven't done any research and you are dishonest about the evidence for your theory. Address the galaxy rotation curves.b) Einstein's personal, preferred model was a special case of the FLRW model. Are you saying that Einstein was wrong about his own theory?

Dark matter isn't being measured. Rotation curves are being measured. By your logic somebody could advance tiny dancing angels as a causative hypothesis, and assert that tiny dancing angels are being measured. They're not.

No, Einstein wasn't wrong. He said space was "neither homogeneous nor isotropic". But "The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity" and it "starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". Something got dropped somewhere along the line. Inhomogeneous space has been replaced by homogeneous space, and the result is the dark matter hypothesis, along with people promoting one hypothesis above alternatives in an attempt to establish it as a consensus.

Farsight wrote:Dark matter isn't being measured. Rotation curves are being measured. By your logic somebody could advance tiny dancing angels as a causative hypothesis, and assert that tiny dancing angels are being measured. They're not.

If someone showed how to measure a parameter of tiny dancing angels with these rotation curves, then, yes, tiny dancing angels would be measured. This is how physics works. Whether or not we would believe in tiny dancing angels is another matter. However, even tiny dancing angels is a better answer than you have given so far because your answer not only doesn't provide an explanation with the possibility of measurement, you are actively contradicting the use of general relativity in the actual scientific papers. You are pursuing your personal fantasy and demanding not only that others believe it, but that they disregard every scientific paper in favour of your fantasy.

No, Einstein wasn't wrong. He said space was "neither homogeneous nor isotropic". But "The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity" and it "starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". Something got dropped somewhere along the line. Inhomogeneous space has been replaced by homogeneous space, and the result is the dark matter hypothesis, along with people promoting one hypothesis above alternatives in an attempt to establish it as a consensus.

As per usual, you did not answer the relevant question. Do you think that Einstein was wrong to prefer a homogeneous model of the universe?

He means that measuring the distance between balls in a cube of balls isn't measuring the balls, but instead measuring the distance between them.If, now, you could not see or sense the balls, but could only sense where passing through them was not possible and where it was; using this as a measure of "between" area of the balls...*shrug* more or less like sonar in a sub...then you would have no direct ability to declare what the objects where the sensors do not pass through are exactly...you would not be able to say they are balls or dancer statues.For all anyone knows, they could be dancer statues in balls...or boxes with obtuse spin that results in a rather rounded feedback to the sensors.*shrug*

The point is that the gaps are measured...not the objects.By reduction, we assume the measure of the objects.

But it's called dark for a reason, and that reason is that we simply don't truly know what that stuff is.For all we know, there could be 500 different classifications of matter within what we call "dark" matter today.

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

Jakob wrote:Farsight says that if a particle is disbanded, it results in light.Is that true or not?

I don't know of the dark matter debate, but I'm interested. How would general relativity do away with the need for it?

Did you mean these question for me?

I do not know what it means for a particle to be "disbanded". There are many interactions that can take place where particles are destroyed and other particles are created. Sometimes this involves photons. Every explanation of how this happens involves specific predictions and mathematical descriptions about how these events happen.

I do not know how general relativity would do away with dark matter, this is an imagining of Farsight, not a supposition of physics. Every measurement of dark matter that I know of involves either scales where general relativity is not supposed to have a significantly different measurement from Newtonian physics or uses general relativity directly. According to astronomers, it is general relativity that suggests that dark matter exists.

Yes, there were intended for you... thanks for trying to answer. But... this is all extremely vague, not really anything of substance. Farsight may be lying, but so far I have to just take his critics at their words. They might be totally in the dark. Which is how it appears to me, because all I get is references to links and comments like 'there are many ways things happen. But I won't get into the mathematical details.' Vaguer than vague.

Anyway, I was under the impression that it is the rotation of galaxies suggest a much greater mass that what is measured, that suggests dark matter. I always found this a bit of a stretch. I am open to the suggestion there is a more elegant solution.